Kane County Case Management System Assessment Project URL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Kane County Case Management System Assessment Project

URL Integration – Kane County CMS Assessment Project Final Report Presentation September 30, 2011 Amir Holmes, Senior Business Analyst & Project Manager

Proposed Solution

• The key point to understand is that given the current standards,

vendor systems can interoperate at a level not feasible before while maintaining their autonomy.

• A traffic cop of sorts can sit in between these systems and

manage all of the business rules and guarantee the information has been received.

• Common data definitions have been developed and

standardized so that case management system vendors understand how information is represented across the justice domain.

• Overlaying all of this is a standardized architecture guiding

vendors and jurisdictions as to how these systems talk to each

• ther on a technical level.
• The recommended solution provides for an incremental approach

to bringing up individual exchanges step-wise over time.

• CMS components can also be brought on over time to spread
• costs. The important overriding concern is that all investments

meet the standards and build for future growth.

Justice Agency Recommendations

• The Clerk’s Office should replace the existing JANO

CMS with a new CMS which meets minimally the Core Functions (set out in subsequent slides).

• The States Attorney’s Office should acquire a CMS to

replace paper driven business process and multiple Access databases.

• The Public Defender’s Office should acquire a CMS to

replace current application.

• Court Services should consider reissuing or

purchasing from the open RFP they issued last winter.

• JANO data should be converted and scrubbed into

normalized relational database.

Recommended Justice Agency Interface Functions

• Clerk’s CMS must accommodate the

technical architecture that will facilitate data sharing/exchanges in its workflow.

• Agencies should share information

system to system not through applications provided by another agency.

Justice Information Sharing Initiative – New Court Case Management System (CMS)

• While there is consensus that the existing Court CMS

should be replaced, a new Court CMS product will require adjustments to the internal court business process and the way that other members of the justice community interact with the courts (in moving from paper to automated exchange of information).

• In order for the new Court CMS to be successful,

users need to “buy in” to this notion of change, and the County is urged to support this environment of change.

• The true benefit of a robust CMS is the ability to

electronically share information with other agency information systems, so that information is shared at key decision points throughout the justice process.

Kane County Information Exchange Analysis

• Information Exchange Meetings
• 390 Documented Exchanges
• Prioritization Meeting
• Priorities Defined for Exchange Implementation
• Arrest Reports /Case Reports
• Warrants
• Charging Documents (Felony, Misdemeanor)
• Traffic Citations
• Continuance Orders /Court Orders /Sentence Orders
• Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI) Reports
• Orders of Protection
• Dispositions (including Prosecutor Disposition)
• Notification of Transport to Court
• Electronic Monitoring/GPS (removal/hookup)
• Supplemental Arrest/Case Reports
• PSI Order
• Order for Bond Report
• Defendant Status Query – LEA would query court
• Address Updates

Four-Phased Implementation Approach

• For implementation purposes, we have broken these priority and the other

exchanges into groups of four phases. The intention is to implement this incrementally staggering the design and implementation into consecutive

• years. The groups are as follows with the Circuit Clerk CMS falling under

Court:

• Phase I Exchanges:

Exchanges Sending Agency Receiving Agency

Arrest/Case Reports Sheriff/LEA Court Services/SAO Charging Documents Sheriff/LEA Court Arrest Warrant Court Sheriff Warrant Quash Court Sheriff Supplemental Arrest/ Case Reports Sheriff/LEA SAO Defendant Status Query Query comes from Jail Query into Court CMS

Four-Phased Implementation Approach

• Phase II:

Exchanges Sending Agency Receiving Agency Court Orders Court Court Services/ SAO/PD/Sheriff Citations LEA Court Sentence Orders Court Court Services/ Sheriff Address Updates Court Services Court Dispo Form Evidence SAO Sheriff/LEA Transport to Court Jail Court Services Bond Report Order Court Court Services

Four-Phased Implementation Approach

• Phase III:

Exchanges Sending Agency Receiving Agency Electronic Monitoring/ GPS (removal/hookup) Court Services Court Orders of Protection Court Sheriff PSI Order Court Court Services PSI Court Services Court

Four-Phased Implementation Approach

• Phase IV:

Exchanges Sending Agency Receiving Agency Sworn Synopsis LEA/Sheriff SAO Unsigned Order for Probable Cause LEA/Sheriff Judge/Court Unsigned Order for Probable Cause SAO Judge/Court Signed Warrant Judge LEA/Sheriff/Court Warrant – Service of Process LEA/Sheriff Judge/Court PEN Letters SAO DOC

Recommended Information Sharing Standards

• GLOBAL REFERENCE ARCHITECTURE (GRA)
• In 2004, the US Department of Justice’s Global Infrastructure/Standards

Working Group endorsed Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) as a recommended strategy for integrating justice information systems.

• The GRA conceptual framework includes the following:
• A methodology for identifying what services—exchange points—a

jurisdiction should develop to solve some identified business problem.

• A standard for describing services so they can be used, understood, and

consumed across jurisdictions.

• Recommended requirements for infrastructure necessary to support SOA.
• Technical communications protocols based on industry standards such

as web services and XML, for transmitting information as messages between justice partners and their systems.

• Guidelines for governing and managing an SOA in a jurisdiction—how to

assign decision rights and responsibilities for implementing elements of an SOA.

• Reference service specifications for common capabilities within criminal
• justice. These references provide a baseline functionality that can be reused

to enable the rapid implementation of jurisdiction specific services.

Recommended Technical Architecture

• This recommendation proposes a service-oriented

architecture (SOA), specifically GRA conformant, that clearly delineates the functions related to the relevant stakeholders.

• The exchanges that Kane County has prioritized during the

assessment will be used to identify common business processes across the enterprise and will be implemented as common services with identified exchanges using NIEM- conformant messages.

• The messages will be triggered by a business event at the

sending agency, sent to the receiving agency, and processed into their application.

• The architecture will also support error handling, as defined

by endpoint agencies involved in the exchange.

• In proposing this technical solution, we recommend the use of

web services as the technical implementation of the GRA.

High-Level Architecture Diagram

Recommended Enterprise Implementation Plan

• We recommend establishing a justice information

sharing governance structure that ensures all the disparate partners have a voice in the process.

• URL believes that all criminal justice partners should

have their own case or records management system in

• rder to accomplish their day-to-day responsibilities.
• As detailed in our year-by-year action plan (upcoming

slides), we recommend the process of securing funds and procuring these systems happen immediately.

• Moreover, we recommend that criminal justice agencies,

including the Circuit Clerk’s Office, leverage the County IT Department’s infrastructure for hosting and networking, leaving the individual case management applications the responsibility of their respective agencies.

Course of Action

• Incremental Approach to Implementation
• One of the first activities would be the development of RFPs for the

Court, and if possible, the SAO, Public Defender, and Court Services case management systems.

• Vendor selection should require that the vendor commits to the

interoperability standards and capability to exchange the information the County has identified.

• The Service Specifications for the identified exchanges can also begin

as soon as resources become available.

• Web services can be generated in most CMS environments fairly easily

using the work product generated in the Service Specifications.

• Infrastructure procurement and implementation can begin in the second

year.

• Exchanges, or the specific sharing of information and electronic

documents between agencies, can be brought on incrementally based upon stakeholder priorities.

Timeline and Related Costs

Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs Comparison

• The implementation of the Enterprise-wide solution will

certainly be a large and expensive undertaking.

• This study projects the five (5) year costs of

maintaining the existing legacy system to minimally be $5,922,345.85.

• This estimate does not include costs of the several

ancillary systems being currently pursued by the Circuit Court Clerk’s Office, with the exception of the proposed data warehouse project.

• It also does not assume any funding for case

management systems for the State’s Attorney, the Public Defender, or Court Services.

Summary of Operations and Maintenance Costs Comparison

• The projected total costs for the new Enterprise solution over five (5) years is

$12,641,950.04, which includes the full implementation of the “to be” environment URL proposes elsewhere in this document. Specifically, our estimates include:

• Funds for new Court CMS, as well as CMS systems for the State’s

Attorney, the Public Defender, and Court Services.

• Costs for current court staff, less the developers and IT infrastructure

support, who will be critical in guiding the implementation of the new CMS system.

• Maintenance and support costs for the existing system until the new

CMS is operational.

• Implementation of over 25 cross-agency workflows by automating the

sharing of several documents electronically, real-time, using standards for justice information sharing and best practices.

• The difference between the existing legacy system costs and the

projected costs for the new solution - $6,719,604.19 – represents the County’s true costs over the five-year period of this project.

Year-by-Year Cost Breakdown

Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis

• Kane County could expect to recover its

investment ($6,719,604.19) in the new CMS environment and integration after Year VIII.

• We believe this estimate to be conservative,

as once the new CMS systems are

• perational efficiencies will be immediate.